Posted By:
Andy BaranHal,
Like you, I do not collect minor league cards, so I NEVER stated that the Baltimore Ruth card was Ruth's rookie. You must have me confused with someone else. I have ALWAYS stated that the M101-5 was his TRUE Rookie, which is why I own the Famous & Barr (for now). I specifically sought out this back to ensure that I had a true Ruth Rookie for my collection. I was the one who worked to change the year of M101-5 from 1915 to 1916. Would I have done this if I was overly concerned about the effect on the value of the card? I had nothing to gain, and potentially something to lose if people like yourself started to believe that since the 2 sets were issued in the same year that the Ruth card would be a Rookie in both sets. It was in my best interest to leave the date as 1915, but I spoke up because I wanted the truth about the sets to be known to the hobby.
I didn't start any of these threads. I just happen to have a Famous & Barr Ruth ROOKIE coming up in auction in April. It seemed appropriate to mention it since the issue has been raised, and you yourself have already stated that I am a capitalist.